HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J
SHWETA - Appellant
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA - Respondent
CW / 4143 / 2025
Decided On : 07-03-2025
(A) Banking Regulation Act - Directions for de-freezing bank account - Writ petition filed against freezing of bank account due to alleged involvement in cyber crime - Petitioner asserts no misuse of account and willingness to cooperate with investigations - Respondent-Bank agrees to allow operation of account with conditions - Court orders de-freezing of account with restriction on disputed amount. (Paras 3, 6, 7)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of judicial intervention in administrative actions - Court emphasizes the need for balance between investigation and rights of the individual, allowing limited operation of account while ensuring compliance with legal requirements. (Paras 4, 5)
ORDER :
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:
“a).The impugned action of the respondents whereby the account of the petitioner has been frozen may kindly be quashed and set aside.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has never misused her bank account for the purpose of illegal transactions and has not committed any cyber crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the Investigating Agencies and will appear before the Bank Authorities and the Investigating Agencies as and when called upon. He, therefore, prays that the disputed amount which has been received in petitioner’s account may be freezed but, the amount other than the disputed amount may be allowed to be withdrawn. He further prays that the petitioner may be allowed to operate her bank account for the transaction of money.
4. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the bank account of the petitioner has been freezed in pursuance of the instructions/complaint received from respondent Nos.2 to 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank also submits that till the matter is pending investigation, the bank account of the petitioner may not be closed and she may be directed not to discontinue the bank account until the investigation is completed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is agreeable with the submissions made by counsel for the respondent-Bank.
6. In view of the submission made before this Court, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Bank to de-freeze the bank account No.37444731919 of the petitioner and she may be allowed to operate the transaction in his bank account, freezing only the amount of Rs.6,800/- or any other amount involved in the Cyber crime which is allegedly involved in a fraudulent transaction.
7. It is made clear that the petitioner will co-operate with the Bank Authorities and the Investigating Agencies and will appear before them as and when required. It is also ordered that the petitioner shall not close or discontinue his bank account till the Investigating Agencies and Bank Authorities permit the petitioner to do so. It is further ordered that after the investigation if the petitioner is found involved in any illegal transaction, she shall be liable to pay the amount involved in the illegal transaction and will face the enquiry/investigation as per the law.
8. Stay petition and other pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
The court affirmed the right to operate a bank account while addressing concerns related to ongoing investigations into alleged cyber crime, emphasizing cooperation with authorities.
The court ruled that a bank account can be de-frozen while allowing transactions, provided the account holder cooperates with ongoing investigations.
The court affirmed the right to operate non-disputed funds in a bank account while cooperating with ongoing investigations into alleged fraudulent transactions.
A bank account may be de-frozen and operated by the account holder during an investigation, provided they cooperate with authorities and only disputed amounts are frozen.
The court affirmed that a bank account should not be unjustly frozen without evidence of wrongdoing, allowing the petitioner to operate his account while restricting only the disputed amount.
The court emphasized the balance between a bank's compliance with law enforcement and the rights of account holders during investigations.
The court ruled that a bank account can be de-frozen for legitimate transactions while freezing disputed amounts involved in alleged fraud, provided the account holder cooperates with investigations.
Freezing a bank account requires just cause and evidence; the petitioner must be allowed to operate their account barring disputed funds.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.